From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 9 16:59:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85FE16A419 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:59:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341C743D73 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:59:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [10.10.3.185] ([69.15.205.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k59Gwxsk039364; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:59:04 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4489A8CC.8030307@samsco.org> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:58:52 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikhail Teterin References: <20060609065656.31225.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200606091253.37446.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <200606091253.37446.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:59:26 -0000 Mikhail Teterin wrote: > п'ятниця 09 червень 2006 02:56, R. B. Riddick написав: > >>I say, does that discrepancy persist, when you just wait some time? > > > Yes... I'm noticing this hours after the dumps ended... > > >>I would guess, that something has an open file descriptor on a deleted >>file, so that this file cannot be really deleted (it just disappears from >>the directory tree)... > > > If anything did, I wouldn't be able to umount the filesystem cleanly, would I? > Yet, it unmounts peacefully, even though the subsequent fsck finds the > superblock summary to be incorrect. > > When I tried to use the FS as a scratch for an unrelated thing, though, I > noticed some processes hanging in nbufkv state. Google-ing led me to the: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2003-June/004702.html > > Is this 3 year old advise *still* true? I rebuilt the kernel with BKVASIZE > bumped to 64K (the block size on the FS in question) and am running another > batch of dumps right now. When it is over, I'll check the df/du... > > Yours, > > -mi Can you actually measure a performance difference with using the -b 65535 option on newfs? All of the I/O is buffered anyways and contiguous data is already going to be written in 64k blocks. Scott